7 ms·

> “If I didn’t do that, I ought to be fired, honestly,” There is a serious problem here. If you ask me any government official who forces a backdoor down the t

> “If I didn’t do that, I ought to be fired, honestly,” There is a serious problem here. If you ask me any government official who forces a backdoor down the throat of a private company ought to be fired, yet he believes he should be fired if he DOESN'T do it. There's a very big divide happening right now in the US. This is going to be a rough time.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
malandrew 11y ago
Honestly, intentionally doing anything that you knowingly believe to be against the Constitution should be a fire-able offense. Upholding the Constitution is basically your primary job responsibility in Law Enforcement and the Military. No other duty should supercede that duty.
- mbreese 11y ago
  But, it's not the role of law enforcement to interpret the Constitution. So in cases such as this, where there isn't really any precedent or the law is ambiguous, the proper location for the decision is the courts.
  - frandroid 11y ago
    Actually, it is the role of law enforcement: https://www2.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2009/september2009/oath.htm https://www2.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2009/september2009/oat... I [name] do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      Where does interpretation enter into that oath?
      - jkestner 11y ago
        You can't read words without interpreting them. Technology will always be moving faster than courts can define how the law applies, and thus interpretation is a part of law enforcement's daily job.
        newjersey 11y ago
        > Technology will always be moving faster than courts can define how the law applies, and thus interpretation is a part of law enforcement's daily job. Imagine using the same logic in gun control. Imagine there were no laws against certain kinds of ammunition and law enforcement just went around saying certain guns are illegal just because what was in the officer's coffee that morning. People always throw around the phrase "we're a constitutional republic, not a democracy" when I say the Connecticut compromise ought to be scrapped but the same people are for a massive overreach by law enforcement. Imagine someone shot and killed you in the street for no reason and said they thought it was their right. Would that absolve them? No. Neither should this kind of overreach by the FBI be legal.
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        > Where does interpretation enter into that oath? In order to support and defend the Constitution, you must have an understanding of what it means (unless you interpret the oath -- itself part of the Constitution -- to mean physical support and defense of the physical document.) To have an understanding, you must interpret. The oath, therefore, requires interpretation. (Now, the Constitution itself gives the judiciary the role of resolving controversies arising under the Constitution, which includes disputes arising from differing interpretations. But people -- including executive officers -- have to have interpretations before they can get to the point where such a dispute arises for the courts to settle.)
      - Zigurd 11y ago
  - RickHull 11y ago
    > But, it's not the role of law enforcement to interpret the Constitution You are correct that law enforcement does not provide the authoritative interpretation of the Constitution, but you seem to imply that they should operate under ignorance of the Constitution. This is wrong. Law enforcement must have an understanding of the Constitution, and they must uphold it. For example, it's a dereliction of duty to always argue that any search is reasonable.
    - mbreese 11y ago
      I implied nothing about the ignorance of the Constitution. Law enforcement must have an understanding of all laws (for their jurisdiction), including the Constitution. However, when there is a legitimate question, it's not up to law enforcement to make the final judgement calls. It's for the judiciary to make that call. It's fair to say that this is an argument that has been building for a while. As such, it's very appropriate for the courts to make this call. And once that decision is made, it's up to law enforcement to act accordingly. Note: I think the California court will reach the same decision as the Brooklyn court. But I don't have an problem with the DoJ/FBI raising the issue.
      - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
        > However, when there is a legitimate question, it's not up to law enforcement to make the final judgement calls. It's for the judiciary to make that call. That's not actually true. The executive and the legislature all have to swear to uphold/defend the constitution and it takes all three branches of government to violate it. If Congress says that something is unconstitutional and refuses to pass a law permitting it then the executive can't do it. (The FBI is nowhere in the constitution, its very existence is at the will of the legislature.) If the executive branch says that something is unconstitutional then they can refuse to do it. Nobody can force the executive to prosecute someone under a law they think is unconstitutional. People only see the courts as the arbiters of the constitution because they're last. You only get there if the legislature is willing to pass the law and the executive is willing to enforce it. But that is a piss poor excuse for the other branches of government to neglect their oaths.
  - mistercow 11y ago
    It's the role of all three branches of government to interpret and obey the Constitution. The courts are just the ones with the final say on which interpretation gets accepted.
- gpm 11y ago
  It more or less is, assuming you are acting under the color of law it is criminal (1). The trick is having this law be actually enforced. (1) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242
- thoth 11y ago
  Not taking sides here, but this view is fine as long as everything is explicitly detailed in unambiguous language. For example, the 4th Amendment protects against "unreasonable" search and seizure. There is a lot of leeway in what is or isn't reasonable. If you believe in the system you should be glad it is going to the courts - it is the job of the judicial branch to interpret the law. And however it comes out will be a precedent for the future.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Honestly, intentionally doing anything that you knowingly believe to be against the Constitution should be a fire-able offense. Its already not merely a firing offense but a federal felony for law enforcement officers and other public officials, but the FBI is the lead agency enforcing that law, so its probably unlikely to be as effectively enforced when the Director of the FBI is involved. [0] [0] https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_o...
chongli 11y ago
I disagree. The FBI's job should be to pursue any and all opportunities at gathering evidence for its cases, within the bounds of the law. It is the job of the courts to sketch out those boundaries by interpretation and precedent. If everything is working properly, the courts will decide that the All Writs Act does not grant the Government this power. Then this matter will be settled and the FBI will have to find some other avenue. Looking at it from the other angle, I think it's a bad precedent if the FBI were to refrain from pursuing an avenue which it believes it may have legal standing to pursue. At that point, it runs the risk of a downward spiral of second-guessing and apprehension.
- Zigurd 11y ago
  > FBI's job should be to pursue any and all opportunities at gathering evidence That's only true in a vacuum. In reality, every tinpot tyrant on the planet would like to have the US set a low bar so they can insist that US tech companies agree to their similar demands.
  - mbreese 11y ago
    And because we have a three branches of government, it is up to the courts to make sure that the bar is set very high...
    - Zigurd 11y ago
      True but irrelevant. It isn't inherently law enforcement's job to probe constitutionality. That's like saying law enforcement should probe just how much force they should use against you before they get sued by the DoJ. It's just as valid an argument to say they should be cautious about constitutionality and still get their job done.
      - mbreese 11y ago
        It's hardly irrelevant. The parent post said "every tinpot tyrant on the planet would like to have the US set a low bar". In this case, it's important to remember that the executive isn't the only branch of government to have an opinion here. No one said anything about probing constitutionality. There is a legitimate question about the limits of the All Writs Act. So they asked a court to issue the request. Law enforcement must work within the confines of the law, but when there is a question of what those confines are -- and in the legal sense, that is most definitely an unanswered question here -- they ask the courts to decide. Once the courts rule, I expect for the FBI/etc... to act in accordance with the ruling. And if you don't like the ruling, talk to Congress.
drzaiusapelord 11y ago
>“If I didn’t do that, I ought to be fired, honestly,” Let's take this on face value. He's suggesting POTUS would fire him for not fighting for backdoors, when POTUS has publicly come out against backdoors. So what is going on here? I suspect Comey is just a fucking idiot. He's one of these old school guys who thinks LE should have an endless war on the citizenship. I suspect we're destined to have this fight every so often, and from a more practical perspective, not every company is Apple or has the financial and political power Apple has. How many others have agreed to the terms Comey demands? Perhaps many.
- newjersey 11y ago
  I know this sounds very tinfoil hat ish but I wonder whether something like this was the reason why Truecrypt shut down.
- r00fus 11y ago
  > Let's take this on face value. He's suggesting POTUS would fire him for not fighting for backdoors, when POTUS has publicly come out against backdoors. So what is going on here? Some people (Comey) believe that what is said in public has no value? Or that those same people might instead believe that the POTUS is not their boss...
- snsr 11y ago
  > I suspect Comey is just a fucking idiot. I'd argue that he's being intentionally deceptive. For example, he testified* that "he's not a good lawyer", when in fact he served as the Deputy Attorney General during the Bush administration. * http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/02/james-comey-ducks-most-important-question-in-apple-fbi-fight http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/02/james-comey-ducks-mo...

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

malandrew 11y ago

Honestly, intentionally doing anything that you knowingly believe to be against the Constitution should be a fire-able offense. Upholding the Constitution is basically your primary job responsibility in Law Enforcement and the Military. No other duty should supercede that duty.

mbreese 11y ago
But, it's not the role of law enforcement to interpret the Constitution. So in cases such as this, where there isn't really any precedent or the law is ambiguous, the proper location for the decision is the courts.
- frandroid 11y ago
  Actually, it is the role of law enforcement: https://www2.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2009/september2009/oath.htm https://www2.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2009/september2009/oat... I [name] do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Where does interpretation enter into that oath?
    - jkestner 11y ago
      You can't read words without interpreting them. Technology will always be moving faster than courts can define how the law applies, and thus interpretation is a part of law enforcement's daily job.
      - newjersey 11y ago
        > Technology will always be moving faster than courts can define how the law applies, and thus interpretation is a part of law enforcement's daily job. Imagine using the same logic in gun control. Imagine there were no laws against certain kinds of ammunition and law enforcement just went around saying certain guns are illegal just because what was in the officer's coffee that morning. People always throw around the phrase "we're a constitutional republic, not a democracy" when I say the Connecticut compromise ought to be scrapped but the same people are for a massive overreach by law enforcement. Imagine someone shot and killed you in the street for no reason and said they thought it was their right. Would that absolve them? No. Neither should this kind of overreach by the FBI be legal.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > Where does interpretation enter into that oath? In order to support and defend the Constitution, you must have an understanding of what it means (unless you interpret the oath -- itself part of the Constitution -- to mean physical support and defense of the physical document.) To have an understanding, you must interpret. The oath, therefore, requires interpretation. (Now, the Constitution itself gives the judiciary the role of resolving controversies arising under the Constitution, which includes disputes arising from differing interpretations. But people -- including executive officers -- have to have interpretations before they can get to the point where such a dispute arises for the courts to settle.)
    - Zigurd 11y ago
- RickHull 11y ago
  > But, it's not the role of law enforcement to interpret the Constitution You are correct that law enforcement does not provide the authoritative interpretation of the Constitution, but you seem to imply that they should operate under ignorance of the Constitution. This is wrong. Law enforcement must have an understanding of the Constitution, and they must uphold it. For example, it's a dereliction of duty to always argue that any search is reasonable.
  - mbreese 11y ago
    I implied nothing about the ignorance of the Constitution. Law enforcement must have an understanding of all laws (for their jurisdiction), including the Constitution. However, when there is a legitimate question, it's not up to law enforcement to make the final judgement calls. It's for the judiciary to make that call. It's fair to say that this is an argument that has been building for a while. As such, it's very appropriate for the courts to make this call. And once that decision is made, it's up to law enforcement to act accordingly. Note: I think the California court will reach the same decision as the Brooklyn court. But I don't have an problem with the DoJ/FBI raising the issue.
    - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
      > However, when there is a legitimate question, it's not up to law enforcement to make the final judgement calls. It's for the judiciary to make that call. That's not actually true. The executive and the legislature all have to swear to uphold/defend the constitution and it takes all three branches of government to violate it. If Congress says that something is unconstitutional and refuses to pass a law permitting it then the executive can't do it. (The FBI is nowhere in the constitution, its very existence is at the will of the legislature.) If the executive branch says that something is unconstitutional then they can refuse to do it. Nobody can force the executive to prosecute someone under a law they think is unconstitutional. People only see the courts as the arbiters of the constitution because they're last. You only get there if the legislature is willing to pass the law and the executive is willing to enforce it. But that is a piss poor excuse for the other branches of government to neglect their oaths.
- mistercow 11y ago
  It's the role of all three branches of government to interpret and obey the Constitution. The courts are just the ones with the final say on which interpretation gets accepted.
gpm 11y ago
It more or less is, assuming you are acting under the color of law it is criminal (1). The trick is having this law be actually enforced. (1) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242
thoth 11y ago
Not taking sides here, but this view is fine as long as everything is explicitly detailed in unambiguous language. For example, the 4th Amendment protects against "unreasonable" search and seizure. There is a lot of leeway in what is or isn't reasonable. If you believe in the system you should be glad it is going to the courts - it is the job of the judicial branch to interpret the law. And however it comes out will be a precedent for the future.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Honestly, intentionally doing anything that you knowingly believe to be against the Constitution should be a fire-able offense. Its already not merely a firing offense but a federal felony for law enforcement officers and other public officials, but the FBI is the lead agency enforcing that law, so its probably unlikely to be as effectively enforced when the Director of the FBI is involved. [0] [0] https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_o...

chongli 11y ago

I disagree. The FBI's job should be to pursue any and all opportunities at gathering evidence for its cases, within the bounds of the law. It is the job of the courts to sketch out those boundaries by interpretation and precedent. If everything is working properly, the courts will decide that the All Writs Act does not grant the Government this power. Then this matter will be settled and the FBI will have to find some other avenue. Looking at it from the other angle, I think it's a bad precedent if the FBI were to refrain from pursuing an avenue which it believes it may have legal standing to pursue. At that point, it runs the risk of a downward spiral of second-guessing and apprehension.

Zigurd 11y ago
> FBI's job should be to pursue any and all opportunities at gathering evidence That's only true in a vacuum. In reality, every tinpot tyrant on the planet would like to have the US set a low bar so they can insist that US tech companies agree to their similar demands.
- mbreese 11y ago
  And because we have a three branches of government, it is up to the courts to make sure that the bar is set very high...
  - Zigurd 11y ago
    True but irrelevant. It isn't inherently law enforcement's job to probe constitutionality. That's like saying law enforcement should probe just how much force they should use against you before they get sued by the DoJ. It's just as valid an argument to say they should be cautious about constitutionality and still get their job done.
    - mbreese 11y ago
      It's hardly irrelevant. The parent post said "every tinpot tyrant on the planet would like to have the US set a low bar". In this case, it's important to remember that the executive isn't the only branch of government to have an opinion here. No one said anything about probing constitutionality. There is a legitimate question about the limits of the All Writs Act. So they asked a court to issue the request. Law enforcement must work within the confines of the law, but when there is a question of what those confines are -- and in the legal sense, that is most definitely an unanswered question here -- they ask the courts to decide. Once the courts rule, I expect for the FBI/etc... to act in accordance with the ruling. And if you don't like the ruling, talk to Congress.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago

>“If I didn’t do that, I ought to be fired, honestly,” Let's take this on face value. He's suggesting POTUS would fire him for not fighting for backdoors, when POTUS has publicly come out against backdoors. So what is going on here? I suspect Comey is just a fucking idiot. He's one of these old school guys who thinks LE should have an endless war on the citizenship. I suspect we're destined to have this fight every so often, and from a more practical perspective, not every company is Apple or has the financial and political power Apple has. How many others have agreed to the terms Comey demands? Perhaps many.

newjersey 11y ago
I know this sounds very tinfoil hat ish but I wonder whether something like this was the reason why Truecrypt shut down.
r00fus 11y ago
> Let's take this on face value. He's suggesting POTUS would fire him for not fighting for backdoors, when POTUS has publicly come out against backdoors. So what is going on here? Some people (Comey) believe that what is said in public has no value? Or that those same people might instead believe that the POTUS is not their boss...
snsr 11y ago
> I suspect Comey is just a fucking idiot. I'd argue that he's being intentionally deceptive. For example, he testified* that "he's not a good lawyer", when in fact he served as the Deputy Attorney General during the Bush administration. * http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/02/james-comey-ducks-most-important-question-in-apple-fbi-fight http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/02/james-comey-ducks-mo...